Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Homily XVII on Acts vii. 35.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Homily XVII.
Acts VII. 35
“This Moses whom they
refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? the same
did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Angel
which appeared to him in the bush.”
This is
very suitable to the matter in hand. “This Moses,” he says.
“This,” the man who had been in danger of losing his life;
the man who had been set at naught by them; “this” the man
whom they had declined: “this” same, God having raised up,
sent unto them. “Whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a
ruler?” just as they themselves (the hearers) said, “We
have no king, but Cæsar.” (John xix. 15.) He here shows
also, that what was then done, was done by Christ. “The same did
God send by the hand of the Angel,” who said unto him, “I
am the God of Abraham.” “This” same Moses, he
says,—and observe how he points to his
renown—“this” same Moses, he says, “brought
them out, after that he had showed wonders and signs in the land of
Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is
that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the
Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me”
(v. 36, 37): set at naught like
me. Him, likewise, Herod wished to kill, and in Egypt He found
preservation just as it was with the former, even when He was a babe,
He was aimed at for destruction. “This is he, that was in the
Church in the wilderness with the Angel which spake to him in the mount
Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give
unto us.” (v.
38.)
Again no mention of temple, none of sacrifice. “With the
Angel,” it says, “he received the lively oracles to give
unto the fathers.” It shows, that he not only wrought miracles,
but also gave a law, as Christ did. Just as Christ first works
miracles, and then legislates: so did Moses. But they did not hear him,
keeping their disobedience, even after the miracles: “To
whom,” he says, “our fathers would not obey:”
(v. 39) after the wonders done
in those forty years. And not only so, but just the contrary:
“but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again
into Egypt. Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us; for as for
this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what
is become of him. And they made a calf in those days, and offered
sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.
Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it
is written in the book of the Prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye
offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years
in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the
star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I
will carry you away beyond Babylon.” (v. 40; 43.) The expression,
“gave them up,” means, He suffered. “Our fathers had
the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed,
speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion he
had seen.” (v.
44.)
Even when there was a Tabernacle, yet there were no sacrifices.
“Did ye offer unto Me slain beasts and sacrifices?”
(Amos
v. 25.) There was “the tabernacle of witness,” and yet it
profited them nothing, but they were consumed. But neither before, nor
afterwards, did the miracles profit them aught. “Which also, our
fathers that came after brought in.” Seest thou, how the holy
place is there wherever God may be? For to this end also he says,
“in the wilderness,” to compare place with place. Then the
benefit (conferred upon them): And our fathers that came after brought
it in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave
out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; who found
favor before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of
Jacob. (v. 45, 46.) David “desired
to find favor:” and he builded not, he, the wonderful, the great;
but the castaway, Solomon. “But Solomon,” it says,
“built Him an house. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in
(places) made with hands.” (v.
47–50.) This was shown indeed already by what had been before
said: but it is shown also by the voice of a prophet; “What house
will ye build for Me? saith the Lord God. As saith the prophet, Heaven
is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build for
me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand
made all these things?” (Is. lxvi. 1, 2.)
Marvel not, he says, if they on
whom Christ confers His benefits refuse His kingdom, seeing in the case
of Moses it was just the same. (Recapitulation). “He brought them
out;” and rescued them not in a general way, but also while they
were in the wilderness. “Wonders and signs,” etc.
(v. 35–50.) Do you mark
that they themselves (Stephen’s hearers) are concerned in those
old miracles also? “This is that Moses:” (v. 37) he, that conversed
with God; he, that had been saved out of situations so strange and
wonderful; he, that wrought so great works, and had so great power.
[“Which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet,” etc.]
He shows, that the prophecy must by all means be fulfilled, and that
Moses is not opposed to Him.386
| 386 Here the innovator, not perceiving that the renewed exposition
began above, inserts the formula ᾽Αλλ᾽
ἴδωμεν
ἄνωθεν τὰ
εἰρημένα, and then has: “This, it says, is Moses, which said, A
Prophet, etc. To this, I suppose, Christ refers, when He says,
‘Salvation is of the Jews,’ hinting at Himself. This is he
that was in the wilderness, with the Angel that spake unto him. Lo,
again he shows, that it was He,” etc. So Edd. | “This is
he that was in the Church in the wilderness, and, that said unto the
children of Israel.” (v.
38.)
Do you mark that thence comes the root, and that “salvation is
from the Jews?” (John iv. 22.) “With the
Angel,” it says, “which spake unto him.”
(Rom. xi. 16.) Lo, again he affirms that it was He (Christ) that gave the Law,
seeing Moses was with “Him” in the Church in the
wilderness.387
And here he puts them in mind of
a great marvel, of the things done in the Mount: “Who received
living oracles to give unto us.” On all occasions Moses is
wonderful, and (so) when need was to legislate. What means the
expression, “Living oracles” (λόγια)? Those,
whereof the end was shown by words (διὰ λόγων): in other words, he means the prophecies.388
| 388 By λόγια
ζῶντα are meant
living oracles in the sense of operative, effectual, as Jesus affirmed
his words to be “spirit and life” (John vi. 63). They contain
vital truth. The law was indeed “weak” (Rom. viii. 3) but it was so
“through the flesh,” i.e. human sinfulness. It was not
inherently weak but was so relatively to the great power of sin in man
which needed to be overcome.—G.B.S. | Then follows the charge, in the first
instance, against the patriarchs [after], the “signs and
wonders,” after the receiving of the “lively oracles: To
whom,” he says, “our fathers would not obey.”
(v. 39.) But concerning those,
Ezekiel says that they are not “living;” as when he says,
“And I gave you statutes that are not good.” (Ezek. xx. 25.)
It is with reference to those that he says, “Living. But thrust
him from them, and in their hearts turned back to
Egypt”—the place where they groaned, where they cried,
whence they called upon God. “And said unto Aaron, Make us gods
which shall go before us.” (v.
40.)
O the folly! “Make,” say they; “that they may go
before us.” Whither? “Into Egypt.”389
| 389 It is not probable that this passage (v. 39, 40) means that the people proposed to return to Egypt (as
Chrys.). In the O.T. the constant representation is that the golden
calf (or bull) was worshipped as the image of the divinity who had
led them out of Egypt (Ex. xxxii. 4; 1 Kings
xii. 28). It seems clearly implied in Ezek. xx. 7, 8; 24,
that the Israelites while in Egypt had been much addicted to the
idolatry of the country. The meaning here is that, being discouraged
and disappointed on account of Moses’ continued absence in the
mount, they were ready to transfer their allegiance from Jehovah to
some of the divinities to whose worship they had previously been
accustomed. The worship of cattle was especially common, as of Apis at
Memphis and Mnevis at Heliopolis.—G.B.S. | See how hard they were to tear away
from the customs of Egypt! What sayest thou? What, not wait for him
that brought thee out, but flee the benefit, and deny the Benefactor?
And mark how insulting they are: “For as for this Moses,”
they say:—“which brought us out of the land of Egypt”
nowhere the name of God: instead of that, they ascribed all to Moses.
Where390
| 390 ῎Ενθα
μὲν
εὐχαριστεῖν
ἔδει, A, B, C. D. F., but
N. and Cat. ἀχαριστεῖν.—Ε.
Καὶ
ἔνφα μὲν
αὐτοὺς
ἀχαριστεῖν
ἦν. Edd. εὐχ. | they ought to give thanks (to God), they
bring Moses forward: where it was, to do as the Law bade them, they no
longer make account of Moses. “We know not what is become of
him.” And yet he told them that he was going up to receive the
Law: and they had not patience to wait forty days. “Make us
gods”—they391
| 391 This
clause, omitted by A. B. C , is preserved by
N. and the Catena. The calf was one, yet they called it Gods: on which
St. Chrys. remarks elsewhere, that they added polytheism to
idolatry.—The next sentence may perhaps be completed thus:
“that they did not even know that there is One
God.”—Edd. from E.F.D. “So frantic are they, that
they know not what they say.” | did not say,
“a God.”—And yet one may well wonder at this, that
they do not even know.—“And they made a calf in those days,
and offered sacrifices unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of
their own hands” (v.
41):
for which they ought to have hid their faces. What wonder that ye know
not Christ, seeing ye knew not Moses, and God Who was manifested by
such wonders? But they not only knew Him not: they also insulted in
another way, by their idol making. “Then God turned, and gave
them up to worship the host of heaven” (v. 42.) Hence these same “customs” date their origin,
hence the sacrifices: they were themselves the first that made
sacrifices to their idols! For that is why it is marked,392
| 392 διὰ γὰρ
τοῦτο
ἐπισημαίνεται. The meaning is: Stephen was accused of speaking against
“the customs,”—sacrifices, temple, feasts, etc.
Therefore he significantly points to that critical conjuncture from
which these “customs” date their introduction: namely, the
Provocation at Horeb. Prior to that, he tells of “living
oracles,” life-giving precepts: after it, and as its consequence,
sacrifices, etc., those statutes which were not good, and ordinances by
which a man shall not live, as God says by Ezekiel. Not a word of
sacrifice till then: and the first mention is, of the sacrifices
offered to the calf. In like manner, “they rejoiced,”
“the people ate and drank, and rose up to play:” and in
consequence of this, the feasts were prescribed: καὶ
εὐφραίνοντο,
φησίν· διὰ
τοῦτο καὶ
ἑορταί.—᾽Επισημαίνεται
might be rendered, “he marks,” “puts
a mark upon it” (so the innovator, who substitutes, τοῦτο
καὶ Δαυὶδ
ἐπισημαινόμενος
λέγει): we take it
passively, “there is a mark set over it—it is emphatically
denoted.” In the active, the verb taken intransitively means
“to betoken or announce itself,” “make its first
appearance.”—In the Treatise adv. Judæos, iv.
§6. tom. i. 624. C. St. Chrysostom gives this account of the legal
sacrifices: “To what purpose unto Me is the multitude of your
sacrifices? etc. (Isaiah i. 11, ff.) Do ye hear how it
is most plainly declared, that God did not from the first require these
at your hands? Had He required them, He would have obliged those famous
saints who were before the Law to observe this practice. ‘Then
wherefore has He permitted it now?’ In condescension to your
infirmity. As a physician in his treatment of a delirious patient,
etc.: thus did God likewise. For seeing them so frantic in their lust
for sacrifices, that they were ready, unless they got them, to desert
to idols: nay not only ready, but that they had already deserted,
thereupon He permitted sacrifices. And that this is the reason, is
clear from the order of events. After the feast which they made to the
demons, then it was that He permitted sacrifices: all but saying:
‘Ye are mad, and will needs sacrifice: well then, at any rate
sacrifice to Me.’”—(What follows may serve to
illustrate the brief remark a little further on, Καὶ ἡ
αἰχμαλωσία
κατηγορία
τῆς κακίας.) “But even this, He did not permit to continue to
the end, but by a most wise method, withdrew them from it…For He
did not permit it to be done in any place of the whole world, but in
Jerusalem only. Anon, when for a short time they had sacrificed, he
destroyed the city. Had He openly said, Desist, they, such was their
insane passion for sacrificing, would not readily have complied. But
now perforce, the place being taken away, He secretly withdrew them
from their frenzy.” So here: “Even the captivity impeaches
the wickedness (which was the cause of the permission of
sacrifice.”) | “They made a calf in Horeb, and
offered sacrifices to the idol:” seeing that, before this the
name of sacrifice is nowhere mentioned, but only lively ordinances, and
“lively oracles. And rejoiced”—that is the reason for
the feasts. (Exod. xxxii. 5, 6.) “As it is
written in the Book of the Prophets”—and observe, he does
not cite the text without a purpose, but shows by it that there is no
need of sacrifices; saying: “Did ye offer slain beasts and
sacrifice to Me?”—He lays an emphasis on this word (to
Me?). “Ye cannot say that it was from sacrificing to Me, that ye
proceeded to sacrifice to them:—“by the space of forty
years:” and this too, “in the wilderness,” where He
had most signally shown Himself their Protector. “Yea, ye took up
the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan: images
which ye made to worship them.”393
| 393 Our passage here follows the lxx. which speaks of Moloch and
Remphan. The terms in the original (vid. R.V.: Amos v.
25–27) are “Siccuth” and “Chiun.” It is a
disputed point whether these are in the prophecy names of divinities or
whether they mean respectively “tabernacle” and
“shrine” (or image). The difficulty lies in the ambiguity
of the Hebrew text. The name Moloch being akin to the Hebrew word for
king (מלך), confusion might
easily arise. The N.T. text varies from the lxx. only in adding the
word προσκυνεῖν
(43) to lay emphasis upon the charge of idolatry, and in replacing
Damascus by Babylon (43), an interpretation from the standpoint of subsequent history.
The statement of our text that the Israelites fell into the worship of
these divinities in the wilderness rests upon extra-Pentateuchal
tradition, derived, perhaps, from such prohibitions of Moloch-worship
and similar idolatries as are found in Lev. xviii. 21, and Deut.
xviii. 10. The charge in the prophecy of Amos is a general one referring to
the frequent lapses of the people into image-worship down to his own
time.—G.B.S. | The cause
of sacrifices! “And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.”
(v. 43.) Even the captivity,
an impeachment of their wickedness! “But a Tabernacle,” say
you, “there was (the Tabernacle) ‘of Witness.’”
(v. 44.) (Yes,) this is why it
was: that they should have God for Witness: this was all.
“According to the fashion,” it says, “that was shown
thee on the mount:” so394
| 394 ὥστε
ἐν τῷ ὄρει ἡ
ὑπογραφὴ
γέγονε. In the
following sentences, there are numerous variations in Edd. from the old
text, but they do not materially affect the sense, and certainly do not
improve it. | that on the mount
was the Original. And this Tabernacle, moreover, “in the
wilderness,” was carried about, and not locally fixed. And he
calls it, “Tabernacle of witness:” i.e. (for witness) of
the miracles, of the statutes.395
| 395 The
expression here used—ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ
μαρτυρίου is the constant but inexact lxx. translation of אהל מועד “tent of
meeting”—i.e. the tent where God met the people. From a
misunderstanding of the etymology of מֹועד (it being taken from עוד to
witness, instead of from יעד to assemble) it was translated
by μαρτυρίον—a rendering which has occasioned frequent
misunderstanding. Μαρτυρίον
is rightly used in the lxx. to render עדות
(from עוּד) in Exod. xxv. 22; Num.
ix. 15.—G.B.S. | This is the reason
why both it and those (the fathers) had no Temple. “As He had
appointed, that spake unto Moses, that he should make it according to
the fashion that he had seen.” Again, it was none other than He
(Christ) that gave the fashion itself. “Until the days of
David” (v. 45): and there was no
temple! And yet the Gentiles also had been driven out: for that is why
he mentions this: “Whom God drave out,” he says,
“before the face of our fathers. Whom He drave out,” he
says: and even then, no Temple! And so many wonders, and no mention of
a Temple! So that, although first there is a Tabernacle, yet nowhere a
Temple. “Until the days of David,” he says: even David, and
no Temple! “And he sought to find favor before God”
(v. 46): and built
not:—so far was the Temple from being a great matter! “But
Solomon built Him an house.” (v. 47.) They thought Solomon was great: but that he was not
better than his father, nay not even equal to him, is manifest.
“Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
as saith the prophet, Heaven is My throne, and earth is My
footstool.” (v. 48,
49.)
Nay, not even these are worthy of God, forasmuch as they are made,
seeing they are creatures, the works of His hand. See how he leads them
on by little and little (showing) that not even these are to be
mentioned. And again the prophecy says openly, “What house will
ye build Me?” etc. (v.
50.)
What is the reason that at this
point he speaks in the tone of invective (καταφορικὥς)? Great was his boldness of speech, when at the point to
die: for in fact I think he knew that this was the case. “Ye
stiffnecked,” he says, “and uncircumcised in heart and
ears.” This also is from the prophets: nothing is of himself.
“Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do
ye.” (v. 51.) When it was not His
will that sacrifices should be, ye sacrifice: when it is His will, then
again ye do not sacrifice: when He would not give you commandments, ye
drew them to you: when ye got them, ye neglected them. Again, when the
Temple stood, ye worshipped idols: when it is His will to be worshipped
without a Temple, ye do the opposite. Observe, he says not, “Ye
resist God,” but, “the Spirit:” so far was he from
knowing any difference between Them. And, what is greater: “As
your fathers did,” he says, “so do ye.” Thus also did
Christ (reproach them), forasmuch as they were always boasting much of
their fathers. “Which of the prophets have not your fathers
persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming
of the Just One:” he still says, “the Just One,”
wishing to check them: “of Whom ye have been now the betrayers
and murderers”—two charges he lays against them396
| 396 E.
F. D. Edd. add, “that they knew (Him) not, and that they murdered
(Him):” but the meaning is, that they betrayed, and that they
murdered: or, as below, Their fathers slew the Prophets, and they, Him
Whom they preached. | —“who have received the Law by
the disposition of Angels, and have not kept it.” (v. 52.) How, “By the
disposition of Angels?” Some say (The Law), disposed by Angels;
or, put into his hand by the Angel Who appeared to him in the bush; for
was He man? No wonder that He397
| 397 τὸν ἐκεῖνα
ποιήσαντα, A. B. C. N. Cat. i.e. that Christ, Who, as the Angel, did
those works, etc. The modern text τοὺς ἐκ.
ποιήσαντας: that those who did those wickednesses, etc.: and so
Œc. seems to have taken it: “If ye killed them who preached
Him to come, no wonder that ye kill Me,” etc.—Below,
for Οἱ
τοίνυν
ἀντιποιοῦνται
τοῦ νόμου,
καὶ ἔλεγον, A. B. N. (N. corrected οὗτοι νῦν) have Οὐ
τοίνυν κ. τ.
λ. and A. λέγοντες: “Therefore they claim not the Law (on their side),
saying,” etc. | who wrought
those works, should also have wrought these.398
| 398 ᾽Αγγέλων (53) cannot refer (as
Chrys.) to the Jehovah-angel of the bush. It refers to angels as the
mediators in the giving of the law, an idea which appears in the lxx.,
the N.T. elsewhere (Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii.
2)
and is prominent in later Jewish theology (Cf. Josephus, Ant.
XV. v. 3) Vid. note *, p. 107.—G.B.S. |
“Ye slew them who preached of Him,” much more Himself. He
shows them disobedient both to God, and to Angels, and the Prophets,
and the Spirit, and to all: as also Scripture saith elsewhere:
“Lord, they have slain Thy Prophets, and thrown down Thine
altars.” (1 Kings xix. 10.) They, then, stand up
for the Law, and say, “He blasphemeth against Moses:” he
shows, therefore, that it is they who blaspheme, and that (their
blasphemy is not only against Moses, but) against God; shows that
“they” from the very beginning have been doing this: that
“they” have themselves destroyed their
“customs,” that there is no need of these: that while
accusing him, and saying that he opposed Moses, they themselves were
opposing the Spirit: and not merely opposing, but with murder added to
it: and that they had their enmity all along from the very beginning.
Seest thou, that he shows them to be acting in opposition both to Moses
and to all others, and not keeping the Law? And yet Moses had said,
“A Prophet shall the Lord raise up unto you: and the rest also
told of this (Christ) that He would come: and the prophet again said,
“What house will ye build Me?” and again, “Did ye
offer to Me slain beasts and sacrifices” those “forty
years?” (Deut. xviii. 18.)
Such is the boldness of speech
of a man bearing the Cross. Let us then also imitate this: though it be
not a time of war, yet it is always the time for boldness of speech.
For, “I spake,” says one, “in Thy testimonies before
kings, and was not ashamed.” (Ps. cxix. 46.) If we chance to
be among heathens, let us thus stop their mouths. without wrath,
without harshness. (Comp. Hom. in 1 Cor. iv. §6; xxxiii. §4,
5; Col. xi. §2.) For if we do it with wrath, it no longer seems to
be the boldness (of one who is confident of his cause,) but passion:
but if with gentleness, this is boldness indeed. For399
| 399 Οὐ γὰρ
δύναται ὁμοῦ
καὶ κατὰ
ταὐτὸν (κατ᾽
αὐτὸν A. C. and N.
originally) καὶ
κατόρθωμα
εἶναι καὶ
ἐλάττωμα. ῾Η
παρρησία,
κατόρθωμα· ὁ
θυμὸς,
ἐλάττωμα. | in one and the same thing success and
failure cannot possibly go together. The boldness is a success: the
anger is a failure. Therefore, if we are to have boldness, we must be
clean from wrath that none may impute our words to that. No matter how
just your words may be, when you speak with anger, you ruin all: no
matter how boldly you speak, how fairly reprove, or what not. See this
man, how free from passion as he discourses to them! For he did not
abuse them: he did but remind them of the words of the Prophets. For,
to show you that it was not anger, at the very moment he was suffering
evil at their hands, he prayed, saying, “Lay not to their charge
this sin.” So far was he from speaking these words in anger; no,
he spake in grief and sorrow for their sakes. As indeed this is why it
speaks of his appearance, that “they saw his face as it had been
the face of an angel,” on purpose that they might believe. Let us
then be clean from wrath. The Holy Spirit dwelleth not where wrath is:
cursed is the wrathful. It cannot be that aught wholesome should
approach, where wrath goes forth. For as in a storm at sea, great is
the tumult, loud the clamor, and then would be no time for lessons of
wisdom (φιλοσοφεἵν): so neither in wrath. If the soul is to be in a condition
either to say, or to be disciplined to, aught of philosophy, it must
first be in the haven. Seest thou not how, when we wish to converse on
matters of serious import, we look out for places free from noise,
where all is stillness, all calm, that we may not be put out and
discomposed? But if noise from without discomposes, much more
disturbance from within. Whether one pray, to no purpose does he pray
“with wrath and disputings:” (1 Tim. ii. 8) whether he
speak, he will only make himself ridiculous: whether he hold his peace,
so again it will be even then: whether he eat, he is hurt even then:
whether he drink, or whether he drink not; whether he sit, or stand, or
walk; whether he sleep: for even in their dreams such fancies haunt
them. For what is there in such men that is not disagreeable? Eyes
unsightly, mouth distorted, limbs agitated and swollen, tongue foul and
sparing no man, mind distraught, gestures uncomely: much to disgust.
Mark the eyes of demoniacs, and those of drunkards and madmen; in what
do they differ from each other? Is not the whole madness? For what
though it be but for the moment? The madman too is possessed for the
moment: but what is worse than this? And they are not ashamed at that
excuse; “I knew not (saith one) what I said.” And how came
it that thou didst not know this, thou the rational man, thou that hast
the gift of reason, on purpose that thou mayest not act the part of the
creatures without reason, just like a wild horse, hurried away by rage
and passion? In truth, the very excuse is criminal. For thou oughtest
to have known what thou saidst. “It was the passion,” say
you, “that spoke the words, not I.” How should it be that?
For passion has no power, except it get it from you. You might as well
say, “It was my hand that inflicted the wounds, not I.”
What occasion, think you, most needs wrath? would you not say, war and
battle? But even then, if anything is done with wrath, the whole is
spoiled and undone. For of all men, those who fight had best not be
enraged: of all men, those had best not be enraged, who want to hurt
(τοὺς
ὑβρίζοντας). And how is it possible to fight then? you will ask. With
reason, with self-command (ἐπιεικεί&
139·): since fighting is, to stand in
opposition. Seest thou not that even these (common) wars are regulated
by definite law, and order, and times? For wrath is nothing but an
irrational impulse: and an irrational creature cannot possibly perform
aught rational. For instance, the man here spoke such words, and did it
without passion. And Elias said,” How long will ye halt on both
your knees?” (1 Kings xviii. 21)
and spake it not in passion. And Phinees slew, and did it without
passion. For passion suffers not a man to see, but, just as in a
night-battle, it leads him, with eyes blindfolded and ears stopped up,
where it will. Then let us rid ourselves of this demon, at its first
beginning let us quell it, let us put the sign of the Cross on our
breast, as it were a curb. Wrath is a shameless dog: but let it learn
to hear the law. If there be in a sheep-fold a dog so savage as not to
obey the command of the shepherd, nor to know his voice, all is lost
and ruined. He is kept along with the sheep: but if he makes a meal on
the sheep, he is useless, and is put to death. If he has learnt to obey
thee, feed thy dog: he is useful when it is against the wolves, against
robbers, and against the captain of the robbers that he barks, not
against the sheep, not against friends. If he does not obey he ruins
all: if he learns not to mind thee, he destroys all. The mildness in
thee let not wrath consume, but let it guard it, and feed it up. And it
will guard it, that it may feed in much security, if it destroy wicked
and evil thoughts, if it chase away the devil from every side. So is
gentleness preserved, when evil works are nowhere admitted: so we
become worthy of respect, when we learn not to be shameless. For
nothing renders a man so shameless, as an evil conscience. Why are
harlots without shame? Why are virgins shamefaced? Is it not from their
sin that the former, from their chastity that the latter, are such? For
nothing makes a person so shameless, as sin. “And yet on the
contrary,” say you, “it puts to shame.” Yes; him who
condemns himself: but him that is past blushing, it renders even more
reckless: for desperation makes daring. For “the wicked,”
saith the Scripture, “when he is come into the depths of evils,
despiseth.” (Prov. xviii. 3.)
But he that is shameless, will also be reckless, and he that is
reckless, will be daring.
See in what way gentleness is
destroyed, when evil thoughts gnaw at it. This is why there is such a
dog, barking mightily: we have also sling and stone (ye know what I
mean): we have also spear and enclosure and cattle-fold: let us guard
our thoughts unhurt. If the dog be gentle (σαίνῃ)
with the sheep, but savage against those without, and keep vigilant
watch, this is the excellence of a dog: and, be he ever so famished,
not to devour the sheep; be he ever so full, not to spare the wolves.
Such too is anger meant to be: however provoked, not to forsake
gentleness; however at quiet, to be on the alert against evil thoughts:
to acknowledge the friend, and not for any beating forsake him, and for
all his caressing, to fly at the intruder. The devil uses caressing
full oft: let400
| 400 Edd.
from E. Σαίνει ὁ
διάβολος
πολλάκις ὡς ὁ
κύων, ἀλλὰ
γνώτω πᾶς
ὅτι. “The devil fawns
full oft as the dog, but let every man know that,” etc. A. B. C.
N. ὡς ὁ
κύων εἰδέτω
(ἰδέτω Χ.) ὅτι. We restore
the true reading by omitting ὡς. “The dog” is anger: the devil σαίνει, not as the dog, but upon the dog, as the
ἀλλότριος in the preceding sentence. “Let our faithful watch-dog
see at once that he is an intruder.” In the following sentence
the image is so far incongruous, as σαίνωμεν here has a different reference: viz. “as the dog fawns
upon the friend though beaten, so let us,” etc. | the dog know at sight that he is an
intruder. So also let us caress (σαίνωμεν) Virtue, though she put us to pain, and show our aversion
to Vice, though she give us pleasure. Let us not be worse than the
dogs, which, even when whipped and throttled, do not desert their
master: but if401
| 401 ἂν δὲ
αὐτοὺς καὶ
τρέφῃ ὁ
ἀλλότριος
καὶ οὕτω
βλάπτουσιν
(Α. βλάψουσιν). The antithesis seems to require the sense to be,
“While, if the stranger even feed them, for all that, they do him
a mischief.” But the words τρέφῃ and βλάπτουσιν
are scarcely suitable in the sense, τροφὴν
διδῷ and λυμαίνονται. Edd. have from E. alone, πῶς οὐ
μᾶλλον
βλάψουσιν; in the sense, “If however the stranger (not merely
caresses but) also (regularly) feeds them, how shall they not do more
hurt (than good)?” i.e. “If the devil be suffered to pamper
our anger, that which should have been our safeguard will prove a bane
to us.”—Perhaps this is the sense intended in the old
reading; but if so, καὶ οὕτω is unsuitable. | the stranger also feed them, even so
they do hurt. There are times when anger is useful; but this is when it
barks against strangers. What means it, “Whosoever is angry with
his brother without a cause?” (Matt. v. 22.) It means, Stand
not up in thine own quarrel, neither avenge thyself: if thou see
another suffering deadly wrong, stretch out thy hand to help him. This
is no longer passion, when thou art clear of all feeling for thyself
alone. David had gotten Saul into his power, and was not moved by
passion, did not thrust the spear into him, the enemy he had in his
power; but took his revenge upon the Devil. (1 Sam. xxvi. 7.)
Moses, when he saw a stranger doing an injury, even slew him
(Exod. ii. 22): but when one of his own people, he did not so: them that were
brethren he would have reconciled; the others not so. That “most
meek” (Num. xii. 3) Moses, as Scripture
witnesseth of him, see how he was roused! But not so, we: on the
contrary, where we ought to show meekness, no wild beast so fierce as
we: but where we ought to be roused, none so dull and sluggish. (Hom.
vi. de laud. Pauli, ad fin.) On no occasion do we use our
faculties to the purpose they were meant for: and therefore it is that
our life is spent to no purpose. For even in the case of implements; if
one use them, one instead of other, all is spoilt: if one take his
sword, and then, where he should use it and cut with it, uses only his
hand, he does no good: again, where he should use his hand, by taking
the sword in hand he spoils all. In like manner also the physician, if
where he ought to cut, he cuts not, and where he ought not, he does
cut, mars all. Wherefore, I beseech you, let us use the thing
(τᾥ
πράγματι) at its proper time. The proper time for anger is never, where we
move in our own quarrel: but if it is our duty to correct others, then
is the time to use it, that we may by force deliver others. (Hom. in
Matt. xvi. §7.) So shall we both be like unto God, always
keeping a spirit free from wrath, and shall attain unto the good things
that are to come, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord
Jesus Christ, with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost together, be
glory, dominion, and honor, now and evermore, world without end.
Amen.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
